i. A professional status?
There is no doubt that, like all other professionals, translators would benefit by having a clearly defined professional status. In fact, in the vast majority of countries, translation is often seen as little more than glorified secretarial work and companies often do not even recognise as 'translators' employees who spend most of their working days translating under all kinds of rather unflattering denominations. One notable exception would be China, where translation needs are so huge and the translators so few - simply because there are few university students and fewer still attracted to translation - that translators have a lot of prestige and consideration.
In most countries, enhancement of the social (and economic) standing of both translation and translators is badly needed, but deep-seated attitudes are not easily changed and the profession itself is partly to blame, because solidarity doesn't come easy: most of the time, it is a matter of'every man (and woman) for him/herself' and translators only stick together when the situation is really bad for everyone.
All translators talk a lot of educating the customer. Professional bodies do their best to try and brighten up the image of translation and translators. But all too little or to no avail: there still exists no official status for translation and translators and trying to get professional recognition and financial rewards for their skills and technical expertise is still basically a lone struggle.
Of course, there are such things as employee collective agreements, but, in the best of cases, they only apply to salaried translators. There are also well-recognised vocational courses and qualifications, but they are not sufficiently influential to improve the overall image of the profession. What is needed is some kind of solemn official international declaration confirming the highly specific technical character of translation as a pursuit, and as a profession. Alternatively, a definition of job profiles relating to translation and of the ways and means to access the translating professions is a necessary first step to make sure that such a category as translating professionals reaches international recognition.
2. Professional titles
For a professional title to be recognised, protected, and promoted, it is vital to state the minimum requirements for 'entitlement'. The model here could be Canada, where the procedure is as follows (excerpted from User's Guide for Translation Services at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_A3/user2_e.asp):
To become a certified member, a translator must belong to the provincial or territorial association of his or her choice and successfully pass a standardised certification examination that the CITC has authorized at the national level. In other words, a translator who, for example, wishes to become a member of the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Alberta must take the same examination as the translator who wishes to become a member of the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Nova Scotia. This rigorous exam ensures that the candidates have the required professional skills to translate general texts accurately and in correct language. Translation certification examinations are held for specific language combinations. This means that a member of an association is certified, for example, for translation from English to French. If the member wants to be certified for translation from French to English or for some other combination of languages, he or she must pass as many exams as there are combinations of languages for which the member seeks certification.
Membership in a professional association entitles the member to the use of the title of certified translator. Some associations award certificates for specialized translators, but these are rare cases. The majority of the members are certified as generalists in one or more combinations of languages. In recent years, three provincial associations - those of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick - have obtained professional recognition from their provincial governments so that their members can use the reserved title of certified translator. Most other associations receive a certain de facto recognition from the public authorities of their province or territory.
There are other countries where official certification actually does take place (Argentine, Sweden with its auktoriserad translators). There are also cases where 'official translators' are recognised to do the translating between two official languages (as with Basque in Spain or Maori in New Zealand). In most cases, only sworn translators are concerned by certification as they are the ones who will certify regulatory or official documents.
There are sworn translators in all countries, but the process of becoming a sworn translator varies considerably from one country to the next: in some countries one may become a sworn translator after actually taking an exam or an accreditation test; in others, it is just a matter of knowing a foreign language (preferably rare). In most countries, the 'title' of sworn translator (under whichever name applies locally) is very much sought after. Being the only official professional title, it conveys an image of true professionalism to potential clients and to the public at large. And the energy that many translators put into being 'sworn' goes a long way towards showing how much official recognition of a professional title based on serious guarantees as to professional competence is needed.
2.1 What title? What skills?
A professional title must guarantee that anyone setting up shop as a translator has the required skills, competences, and ethics.
Defining key skills and competences
If a professional title is to provide any guarantee as to the professional capacity of the holder, there must first of all be a clear and consensual definition of the competences, skills and aptitudes required of anyone wanting to use that title. The competences, skills and aptitudes required in standard translation practice can easily be defined by a joint committee made up of translators' representatives, employers, work providers, training institutions and public authorities. In this case, 'standard' means common to all categories of translators.
This would in no way prevent anyone from going beyond the common denominator and allowing future translators to acquire additional specific skills and competences or refined work practices, as is already the case. The important thing is that the profession should agree on a common core which would be demanded of anyone wanting to call themselves 'translators'. Should it prove impossible to define a common core of translator skills and competences, there would be every reason to cast a doubt on the intellectual and economic relevance of the innumerable conferences, symposia, working groups, technical committees and so forth, which have spent years poring over the question of translator profiles and who might well, if it came to that, address the issue by a further raft of conferences, working groups and technical committees...
A consensual and dynamic definition of the required competences, skills and aptitudes is a pre-requisite for any effective action in this area. Once this has been achieved, the title can be delivered to those who have demonstrated that they have the said competences, skills and aptitudes.
2.2 Delivering the title
2.2.1 Course validation procedures
Given that university degrees are deemed to certify the graduates' knowledge and abilities in a given field, the title of translator would - in an ideal world - automatically be conferred on anyone holding a degree in translation. This would place the onus of responsibility on academics and academic institutions, and, where relevant, on the authorities that validate and 'certify' vocational courses.
This is an important and indeed crucial question in all those countries where translation courses (unfortunately not necessarily translator training courses) are recognised (on the basis of curricula freely decided by academics) by official committees that rarely have any real idea of the professional profiles required. Worse still, some courses actually do get approval despite very loud and clear indications from professional circles and especially potential employers or work providers that the curriculum is badly designed or even altogether irrelevant.
It is therefore of the utmost importance to remember that the existence of'nationally recognised' or, so far, 'European' degrees does not imply in any way that the qualifications are uniform.[12] A postgraduate degree in translation awarded by one university in a given country may have very little (and sometimes almost nothing) in common with another postgraduate degree awarded by another university in the same country, be it from the point of view of admission requirements, course contents and organisation, learning environments, professional training and expected learning outcomes. Graduates may well be awarded degrees with the same or similar 'titles', but they will by no means necessarily have the same professional competence or aptitudes and the same level of employability. Hence the unofficial (and sometimes even official) 'league tables' through which employers rank the translation graduates nationally and internationally.
In theory, the array of competences, skills and aptitudes required of a practising translator should serve as the foundation and framework for curriculum development in any course or programme delivering qualifications in professional translation (whatever the specialisms involved). This would ensure that all translation graduates leaving university are fully aware of all the requirements and ethics of the profession, if only because the definition of the professional qualification should probably also insist on practical experience and work placements in the course of study.
It is all the more essential to work on the above objectives as nationally recognised qualifications will very soon be expected to comply with internationally agreed standards and will even in some cases be recognised as international professional diplomas or grades. Although international harmonisation of qualifications in terms of course names and contents should go a long way towards solving the issue of a translator status at the European level, and even beyond, it will by no means imply that all degree or postgraduate courses in translation are of equal value unless the procedures and metrics used to assess outcomes are the same.
2.2.2 Recognising professional experience
In many countries, people with professional experience can now be awarded university qualifications, and therefore professional titles, on the basis of that experience alone. This means that anyone with the required type and amount of experience in translating can in theory have that experience validated under such a system, and get the right to use the professional title of'translator'.
Where such a system prevails, a qualification awarded under these conditions is deemed to be on a par with any other similar qualification awarded through more traditional channels.
2.2.3 Assessing competence
It would seem perfectly legitimate for anyone with a bona fide qualification in professional translation, whether awarded on the basis of a degree course or on the basis of prior professional experience, to lay claim to the title of translator. Yet the only really effective way of guaranteeing professional competence would be to check that the person actually does have all the skills and competences required. This would not require complicated procedures, but would simply mean checking that incompetent translators are not usurping the title - screening the incompetent performers out of the frame. The idea is not to carry out some sort of ruthless selection but to make sure that minimum guarantees are provided as to the quality of performance.
2.2.4 Recognising professional experience and assessing professional competence:
Professional title or academic qualification? Many may think that assessing professional competence and recognising professional experience amount to one and the same thing. This is indeed the case - in a sense - since it is impossible to recognise experience without assessing the person's competence. However, those who ask for their professional experience to be taken into account usually do so in order to be awarded an academic qualification and, in that case, things are not so simple: someone who has demonstrated that he or she can earn a living as a translator may still be quite incapable of meeting the requirements of academic qualifications in translation. That person may, for instance, have no knowledge or competence in areas such as terminology management, translation tools, computing, phraseology, project management, quality assurance, localisation, subtitling, which maybe part of the course curriculum and thus expected learning outcomes. Such a person could therefore quite legitimately claim to use the 'title' of translator, but would not automatically be awarded the particular qualification.
2.3 Caution required
Some will of course object to the distinction between a 'title' and a 'qualification' in translation, on the following grounds:
1. This would give too much power to the universities and to any other establishment having the authority to deliver qualifications and run courses in translation (which may sometimes be language courses that just include a translation component). This is a fair objection, and it means that all institutions delivering qualifications in translation should comply with standard core requirements as regards the basic curriculum and skills, competence and aptitude assessment procedures - again, with the proviso that any institution would be free to add whatever options or specialisms they see fit.
Failing this, the qualifications 'market' will become a free for all where some institutions may be tempted to "hard discount" their degree awards. Anyone acquiring such a degree could then be left holding a worthless piece of paper, simply because no one in the industry would be willing to recognise it as a proof of competence.
Various organisations may also be tempted to introduce 'external' certification, on the lines of the professional examination organised by translators' associations in Canada or in a few other countries. Such exams can quite easily be designed to test the full range of competences, skills and aptitudes described above. All it would need is for an independent body, recognised by the industry and by the relevant authorities, to regularly organise professional certification tests (as in Quebec and Ontario), to have the tests marked anonymously by neutral examiners (with a dual marking system and an appeal procedure), and to award the title to anyone passing the test. Both this kind of test and the final exams taken in universities and other institutions could be based on criteria similar to those used in translation company or translation service recruitment tests.
2. Qualifications can be awarded at several levels, and a consensus will have to be sought as regards the level at which a professional title can be awarded or at which professional experience acquired by practising translators can be recognised. At least, the new 'Bologna' level two qualification ('masters' or whatever other denominations maybe used) should eventually be recognised automatically by all the EU countries. If the DGT initiative carries the results it is expected to, this will confirm a de facto situation whereby qualifications in translation are almost all professionally oriented postgraduate qualifications. This would soon produce standard, clearly labelled qualifications and similar course contents and objectives and it would then only be a short step to deciding that equivalent qualifications (under one common name) could confer the professional 'title' and that the title would determine the translator's status and possibly access to the profession.
3. On the face of it, the third objection is more serious, i.e. that anyone already practising as a professional translator should be able to avail her/himself of the title. But this would mean that:
- either the title should be awarded automatically to anyone able to prove recent practise of the profession for a given length of time - which would run counter to the idea that only an officially recognised qualification, awarded either on completion of a university degree course or on the basis of professional experience should allow people to use the title;
- or the title has lost part of its significance;
- or the system of awarding qualifications on the basis of professional experience has become obsolete.
In fact, the argument is only sustainable if there is a conjunction of a professional title and regulated access to the profession. In that case, it might be decided that access to the profession remains open for a given length of time to all, irrespective of qualifications, who can prove that they have already practiced translation on a professional basis.
2.4 What if such a 'title' came into being?
An incorrigible optimist might be founded in saying that, if the title became
reality:
a) the new responsibility that would go with awarding a professional title (and not simply an academic qualification) would naturally have a positive effect on the quality of the courses delivered, especially if it were backed up by a national or, better still, an international vetting process applied to the assessment of competences, skills and aptitudes.
b) the possible recognition of professional experience should encourage academic institutions to offer appropriately tailored courses for people with work experience, especially if translation courses get to admit more and more practising professionals and technical experts from other fields. These would preferably be taught as distance courses.
c) if such a title did exist and effectively enhanced the standing and status of the title holders, any practising translator - with the possible exception of those working in 'captive' and highly lucrative markets - would seek it. Let us not forget that many of those who actually do translation work in companies without having either the job title or the financial rewards that should go with the skills involved, are desperate to find ways to be recognised in their job.
d) organisations and institutions that call on the services of translators would have to appoint or recruit certified and therefore fully 'entitled' professionals. In most cases, this would, among other things, clarify the conditions under which 'official' translators (and sometimes interpreters) are recruited and paid in quite a few countries.
Nothing would then prevent anyone (be it a company, an organisation, a professional association, an academic institution or whoever) from setting up a higher- grade certification level or subjecting translator-title holders to an additional screening process. And why not a two-tier system from the start, with a first-level title certifying competences, skills and aptitudes in general and semi-specialised translation, and with a second-level title for specialist translation skills (i.e. by domain, type, medium, or technique, etc.)?
3. Regulating access to the profession?
The question that really raises translators' blood pressure is the issue of access to the profession: should it be restricted to those who hold a 'diploma' or 'accreditation' or 'certification' or be open to anyone who proves capable of practising the professional skills required? The debate has been raging for some time now, and the lines are clearly drawn. The arguments for and against regulation listed here have frequently been aired in a number of professional journals, on Web sites and translators' mailing lists.
3.1 Against
Those who oppose any kind of regulated access to the translating professions
usually base their position on the fact that most translators are deeply convinced
that they are special cases and have a basically individualistic outlook on their
profession. They draw on any number of the following arguments.
1. Translation is one of the very few remaining fields where people are free to be their own boss. If anyone can 'set up shop', then so be it and let the best man (or woman) win!
2. Regulating access to the profession would distort free competition.
3. The most important thing for the translator is the very special relationship and trust that he must establish with his clients. And this kind of relationship has nothing whatsoever to do with professional statuses. The translator should therefore be completely free to run his business without interference of any kind (and the red tape is bad enough as it is!).
4. Defining conditions of access to the profession and a professional status would rapidly lead on to a standard definition of services and translation tariffs, as in regulated health service professions, whereas in fact translators and doctors, for instance, have little in common as regards their role in society and it would therefore be stupid to treat them alike.
5. Any freelance translator's ambition is to make a living. The going is often tough at first and it is only fair that freelancers should be free to reap the full benefits once they have built up a reputation and a client portfolio. Regulations might prevent them from catching up.
6. Translators are not interested in regulatory frameworks: all that matters, irrespective of background and personal motives, is doing a good job with genuine respect for professional ethics
7. Regulating access would mean reducing the current diversity of origin which is the hallmark of a dynamic profession.
8. A regulatory framework would be designed to protect a bunch of cosseted university graduates, 'trained' by academics in their ivory towers, as opposed to self-taught translators whose skills and competences are founded on their expertise and experience in a technical field (in the broad sense of the word). Far better to leave the doors wide open and to let the free market take care of (natural) selection.
9. Translators cannot be 'trained': they emerge by a natural process. This is what they have done in the past and this is what they should keep doing. Besides, it should take only a few weeks to master translation techniques. Long university courses are only needed if you get it into your head to 'train' translators from scratch, especially those with a 'languages-and-literature' background. Anyway, the average standard of the work done by a 'trained' translator is poor
and in any case no better (in fact often significantly worse) than that done by a self-taught translator.
10. All you need to do to get rid of unfair competition is to apply existing regulations and make sure that anyone practising translation on a regular basis pays all due contributions and taxes. Force the cheaters to comply with existing regulations and let the others get on with the job.
11. It is up to employers in companies and translation services and purchasing managers to select the most able applicants or the most competitive subcontractors, in the knowledge that the best man (or woman) will always come out on top.
12. In a global marketplace where work providers can shop around without any restriction, no regulation or legislation or statute can have the slightest effect on the translation markets or on the quality of translations. Defining a restrictive translator status in a given country would amount to lumbering the translators from that country with a severe handicap in the face of competition from unregulated countries.
3.2 For
Those who argue in favour of some kind of regulated access to the profession also
do so for a variety of reasons.
1. They want to introduce some degree of assurance that every practising translator will meet at least minimum standards of professional competence by ensuring that all translators are aware of what is at stake for the profession and what translation implies, and that they can guarantee satisfactory quality whatever the circumstances, while complying strictly with the code of professional ethics.
2. They implicitly want to establish a clear distinction between (1) those who have demonstrated that they have all the necessary professional qualities to practise as translators (irrespective of whether they have university qualifications or not) and (2) those who were not awarded the official title or who have no interest in claiming it.
3. They want to afford some protection to translators, especially the most vulnerable: e.g. those who only have access to the most fragmented, least lucrative, geographically isolated markets, or more simply the beginners in the profession.
4. They would like to help to enhance the image of the profession and get rid of some of the 'outlaws', even though the latter would still survive on the fringes but would then be clearly shown up for what they are.
5. They really hope this would force employers - and especially organisations - to use clear quality criteria when recruiting new staff.
6. They want some measure of market protection and it is no surprise to see that the calls for official recognition of the translation profession usually grow louder when market conditions (in terms of volume and in terms of tariffs) begin to deteriorate and translators start to find it hard to earn a decent living after contributions and taxes.
7. Above all, they think there is no other viable way to impose translation quality standards such that any person can find the information or documentation they need in a given language that is (a) at least comprehensible and (b) effective for the purpose it was designed for. The qualification process would be such that every translator would meet minimum quality standards and adhere to a strict ethical code. This should be the real goal of any certification process - short of getting official international backing for an official status. And it should alleviate the tendency of the markets to give priority to the lowest bidder.
8. A comprehensive picture should also include the disquiet of those who fear the longer term effects of the growing number of translator training courses being set up all over the world, and especially in rather low or very low cost countries which could attract off-shore businesses (such as Asia, the Central and Eastern European countries, Brazil for Portuguese, the Spanish-speaking Americas and, to a lesser extent, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, etc.). And there is another fundamental question: what will happen anyway once the market for some language pairs and/or domains is flooded with well qualified and well trained translators? Will anyone dare suggest that quotas or even a moratorium might be in order?
3.3 So what is the answer?
Despite what many translators think, translating is not a totally unregulated profession everywhere. As we said earlier, countries as far apart and as different as Canada (in Quebec, Ontario and New-Brunswick), Argentina, Denmark and Norway, award translators a legal status and access to the profession is subject to professional approval (a process whereby a local union of professional translators recognise that new entrants to the profession have all the necessary skills and competences).
In most countries, practising as a translator implies at least some form of registration and a number of clearly defined tax and social security obligations. If every work provider bothered to ask translators for their self-employed registration number where regulations make such registration mandatory, unfair competition would very quickly disappear, though this would still not necessarily solve the problem of poor quality work.
When all is said and done, common sense could solve the problem. The situation might be as follows:
- in any case, access to the practice of translation on a professional basis would require full compliance with all applicable tax and social security obligations;
- the title of professional translator would be awarded to those graduating from a university course or on the basis of prior professional experience, according to standard, internationally recognised procedures;
- those translators who feel that the title is important because this would guarantee their competence and the quality of their work would seek to become 'state registered' or chartered translators.
The system could be implemented smoothly and fairly, even in the context of globalisation, without resorting to further regulations or restrictions. There would just remain one thing to be done: all those in favour of consumer protection or protecting work providers' interests should logically be in favour of introducing a translating aptitude test for anyone wanting to practice translation professionally. This kind of test would simply be designed to weed out the budding translators who are clearly unable to meet certain minimum quality criteria (at least temporarily, as the test could obviously be re-taken at regular intervals).
Дата добавления: 2015-09-29; просмотров: 21 | Нарушение авторских прав
| <== предыдущая лекция | | | следующая лекция ==> |